Is This Your Perspective or Experience As Well?

[bluegreenearth]

Here is a notable inventory of relatively common perspectives and experiences I often encounter through my interactions with various apologists:

(Note: If these are straw-men, then blame resides with the apologists who have articulated these perspectives and experiences to me, and I'm not insisting they represent the perspectives or experiences of all apologists.)

• Some apologists suggest they are incapable of doing anything right in the eyes of their god.

• Anyone's effort to improve themselves on their own is often met with skepticism, critique, and a general sense that people could never be good enough without guidance from the apologist's god.

• Some apologists suggest that they are not comfortable expressing disagreement or a difference of opinion with their god, even if they are confident in the accuracy of their perspective.

• In situations where some apologists do not exactly know how their god feels about something, they exhibit anxiety over the possibility of having the wrong answer.

• Some apologists recommend that the “walking on eggshells” feeling with their god is a justifiable warning against disobedience.

• When some apologists describe moments from their past when they've expressed disagreement with their god's opinion on an issue, it is their current perspective that they were being overly sensitive at the time and suggest their god would have been justified for being angry with them.

• Some apologists suggest that they are emotionally, morally, and intellectually inferior to their god.

• Some apologists imply that their own thoughts, feelings, or perspectives on an issue should be suppressed to prioritize their god's perspective instead.

• Some apologists claim they could never “measure up” to the standards required by their god and must seek forgiveness for being inherently and irreversibly flawed.

• Some apologists indicate that they embrace a sense of humility and acknowledge feelings of failure, remorse, and confusion at their inability to meet their god's standards.

• According to some apologists, they could never be on “equal footing” in a relationship with their god and should always seek their god's mercy.

• Some apologists derive justifications for their god's violent behavior that are rooted in what they claim is the “righteousness” of their god.

• When their god is given credit for actions that result in unnecessary or excessive harm to others, some apologists suggest that they cannot judge their god based on their own inferior understanding.

• Some apologists routinely supply justifications for their god's behavior that they repeat for themselves for actions they would otherwise condemn.

• Some apologists claim they just accept or justify their god's violent behavior rather than confront him about it.

• Some apologists attempt to minimize their god's violent behavior, thus removing the need to excuse it.

Could those perspectives be indicators of an abusive relationship or are the similarities just coincidence?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #5]

The reply to your post was a mistake on my part. Was meant as a reply to the OP.

But even in your response, while I agree moderated, there is an identification of online apologists. So why single out one group and not all?

These behaviors are not confined to a group is my point, and a more meaningful conversation would be about how to move forward more productively, and all sides giving up some of their biases and bad behaviors for the sake of better understanding and personal growth.

Thanks for the clarification as I was confused
Much said about Christians can be said of others: they're not perfect, they can love others, they can hate others, etc. In other words, anyone can be a good person, or a jerk, independent on their religious affiliation, gender, age, race, height, IQ, economic status, etc.
In regards to personal growth: I've found, while possible in most everyone, some personal held beliefs hinder personal growth.
That and the world's not perfect and everyone has room for improvement. Getting individuals to accept that is a whole other can 'o worms.

[theophile]

[Replying to Tcg in post #10]

I'm pretty sure that what I initially said is that we all have interactional grievances and should get it out in the open on both sides to move forward more productively.

Yes, I feel that a lot of atheists are like hammers looking for nails. Just as a lot of theists (myself included) can be preachy and disconnected from reality. (Along with a whole slew of other things that could be applied to both sides.)

Frankly, I think we all need a full colonoscopy and rethink of how we approach a number of discussions on this forum to break apart the cliques. Even the whole categorization of atheist vs. theist does not help, and leads to inaccurate assumptions, talking past each other, veiled and not-so-veiled insults, dismissals without reason, etc., etc.

It often feels like two sides just propping each other up and giving praises to themselves versus a genuine pursuit of dialogue.

Again, not a blanket statement. Just (in the spirit of the OP) something I have found in my experience.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Tcg in post #10]

I'm pretty sure that what I initially said is that we all have interactional grievances and should get it out in the open on both sides to move forward more productively.

Yes, I feel that a lot of atheists are like hammers looking for nails. Just as a lot of theists (myself included) can be preachy and disconnected from reality. (Along with a whole slew of other things that could be applied to both sides.)

Frankly, I think we all need a full colonoscopy and rethink of how we approach a number of discussions on this forum to break apart the cliques. Even the whole categorization of atheist vs. theist does not help, and leads to inaccurate assumptions, talking past each other, veiled and not-so-veiled insults, dismissals without reason, etc., etc.

It often feels like two sides just propping each other up and giving praises to themselves versus a genuine pursuit of dialogue.

Again, not a blanket statement. Just (in the spirit of the OP) something I have found in my experience.

The problem we're dealing with is belief (or lack of) requires no proof or verifiable evidence in order to believe in it (or not). We could give all the verifiable evidence available and it won't change some peoples' minds. And when those people are challenged, they get defensive. Human nature I suppose. That's not going to change. Best we can do (in here) is report those who hide behind veiled insults, then ignore them and understand a couple bad apples don't spoil the whole bushel. Eventually they will go away I suspect.

[bluegreenearth]

I'm pretty sure that what I initially said is that we all have interactional grievances and should get it out in the open on both sides to move forward more productively.

Yes, I feel that a lot of atheists are like hammers looking for nails. Just as a lot of theists (myself included) can be preachy and disconnected from reality. (Along with a whole slew of other things that could be applied to both sides.)

Frankly, I think we all need a full colonoscopy and rethink of how we approach a number of discussions on this forum to break apart the cliques. Even the whole categorization of atheist vs. theist does not help, and leads to inaccurate assumptions, talking past each other, veiled and not-so-veiled insults, dismissals without reason, etc., etc.

It often feels like two sides just propping each other up and giving praises to themselves versus a genuine pursuit of dialogue.

Again, not a blanket statement. Just (in the spirit of the OP) something I have found in my experience.

I can appreciate and empathize with your perspective in that regard. In fact, I recently felt compelled to establish some voluntary ground rules and expectations with another interlocutor as a result of what I perceived to be chronic discourteous behavior. I've included my voluntary terms of engagement below in case you might be interested in borrowing or customizing them for your own use:

Since my various attempts to politely request more charitable behavior from you have been ignored in some cases and openly rejected in others, this interlocutor is acting on his discretion to temporarily discontinue the discussion here in order to establish some voluntary ground rules and expectations. I will reconsider returning to the discussion if you are willing to voluntarily honor the following terms of engagement with me:

1. When defending your position, you must clearly identify and describe the premises of your argument without including unnecessary commentary regarding other people's arguments. If your argument is sufficient to successfully defend your position, then whatever objections you have to the arguments of other people are irrelevant. You are, of course, encouraged to politely respond to any questions or objections I direct at the premises of your own argument.
2. Make a genuine effort to be more charitable when interpreting the contents of any questions or objections I direct at the premises of your argument. It is not uncommon for me to spend several hours carefully choosing my words when responding to your arguments in order that the various nuances of my perspective may be more clearly understood when thoughtfully considered. As such, it shouldn't be perceived as unreasonable when I request that you reciprocate by carefully considering the nuances entailed in the content of my responses and choose the most charitable interpretation possible before launching objections at me. There is no rush, so don't settle on the most convenient interpretation for the sake of providing a prompt response. I perceive it to be discourteous when someone quickly chooses a less charitable but convenient interpretation of my remarks after I've personally dedicated a generous amount of time and energy towards the selection of precise and appropriate language for the expressed purpose of minimizing the possibility of being misinterpreted.
3. If you find the most charitable interpretation of my remarks to still be objectionable, politely ask me to verify the accuracy of your interpretation before launching into a rebuttal. Otherwise, you will have wasted your time as well as mine arguing against a misinterpretation of my perspective. I also perceive it to be discourteous when someone immediately responds to one of my posts with a lengthy rebuttal without having first verified that their interpretation of my remarks was accurate.
4. After you have verified the accuracy of your interpretation and are ready to discuss any objections you might have, respectfully exclude unnecessarily harsh rhetoric and sarcasm from your rebuttal. Such tactics only serve to distract from the point you are attempting to articulate and disincentivizes me from providing you the benefit of the doubt as I attempt to charitably interpret your remarks.
5. In the event I discover I'm mistaken about something and subsequently concede my error, do not attempt to unfairly capitalize on that opportunity by responding with harsh or condescending rhetoric. Even if the circumstances are such that I had almost no choice but to acknowledge my mistake, continued and persistent criticism against me for having made the error will be perceived as unnecessarily discourteous behavior.

It should be noted that I intend for those voluntary expectations to apply towards me as well, and I intend to try my best to comply with them in all my discussions with other forum members. Furthermore, I recognize where those conditions are more stringent than those of the forum's rules of behavior but am only requesting your voluntary compliance with them. If those voluntary terms of engagement seem reasonable to you, then please indicate as such. On the other hand, if you perceive my request to be unreasonable, then I will politely decline any further dialogue with you.

[brunumb]

How does one not do anything right in the eyes of atheism? Simple. By basing your conduct / worldview on biblical teaching / the word of God.

I'm sorry but that still makes no sense to me. There are no "eyes of atheism". I am not answerable to any non-existent being. Are you saying that by not basing my worldview or conduct on biblical teaching then I am not doing anything right? How does that work?

By the way, my conduct and worldview are not determined by the fact that I do not believe in any gods. They are instead informed by an empathy for my fellow human beings where I do my best to not inflict any harm or hurt on others through my actions. God just does not come into it at all.